2024 (2) TMI 797 - HC - GST

GST Registration Cancellation Overturned: Authority Must Reconsider Petition with Fair Hearing and Reasoned Decision

Kanyaka Parameswari Oils Pvt Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner, Kadapa-II, The Superintendent of Central Tax, Andhra Pradesh, The Union of India.

The HC found the GST registration cancellation arbitrary and violated natural justice principles. The court set aside the rejection of revocation ... Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - cancellation on the ground that petitioner earlier failed to submit the cogent record showing that he is conducting trading operations from the same business premises where he was earlier conducting the manufacturing operations - HELD THAT:- The order of rejection of application for revocation of the cancellation dated 24.01.2024 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside and matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent with a direction to consider the supportive documents said to be filed by the petitioner and also afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order regarding the cancellation of the registration expeditiously, but not later than two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The writ petition is disposed off by way of remand. Issues Involved: The issues involved in this case include arbitrary cancellation of registration u/s GST Act, rejection of application for revocation of cancellation, violation of principles of natural justice, and violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.Cancellation of Registration: The petitioner filed a writ petition u/s Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus to declare the impugned Suo Motu Order of Cancellation of Registration and the Order of Rejection of Application for Revocation of Cancellation as arbitrary, capricious, and violative of natural justice. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice for cancellation was vague and did not specify the provision violated, leading to unfairness in the process. The petitioner submitted an application for revocation of cancellation, supported by documents, but it was rejected without due consideration of the evidence provided.Arguments by Petitioner: The petitioner's counsel contended that the show cause notice lacked specificity regarding the alleged violation, hindering the petitioner's ability to respond promptly. Despite submitting documents supporting the continuity of trading activities at the same premises, the revocation application was dismissed without proper evaluation. The petitioner's counsel requested the court to set aside the rejection order and remand the matter to the authority for a fair consideration based on the supportive documents.Arguments by Respondents: The Standing Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 argued that the cancellation of registration was justified due to the petitioner's failure to provide adequate proof of continued trading operations at the same premises. However, they assured that if the petitioner submits compelling evidence, the authority would reconsider the matter and make a decision accordingly.Judgment: The High Court set aside the order rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation and directed the authority to reexamine the supportive documents submitted by the petitioner. The court instructed the 2nd respondent to conduct a thorough review, provide the petitioner with a hearing opportunity, and issue a decision on the cancellation of registration within two weeks from the receipt of the order. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and any pending interlocutory applications were closed as a result.